(05-03-2021 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Can you please tell me how the response you gave is responsive to my comment such that you'd ask 'how hard are you looking? You're essentially arguing that you aren't trying to amend the right to bear arms, you are merely trying to expand the limitations. I'm looking, and you're obfuscating.


Remember when I said 'intelligently argue'? This is what I meant.

You start by accusing me of assigning a belief to you... which I never did... and you ask me to defend having done so?

Let's start with this. Your definition of 'home defense' is inconsistent with the laws on lawful discharge for home defense. If you indiscriminately bomb or shoot or land-mine someone on your property, you are not acting within the laws of self-defense. You must REASONABLY be in fear for your life in order to act in self defense. Something Tanq has mentioned and you've ignores. If the guy is far enough away that a missile is appropriate, it is going to be all but impossible to conclude that you were acting in self-defense.

Your fantasy about how a machine gun is appropriate for home defense aligns you with morons on the right of this issue. Machine guns, bombs, missiles etc are not discriminate weapons.

Let me say that differently... The weapons that have been disallowed generally do not fit the definition of 'suitable for LEGAL home defense'. Mostly because LEGAL home defense requires believing that 'this person you killed' was going to kill you and/or that any collateral damage was 'reasonable'.

You cannot reasonably use a machine gun or cruise missile inside or even close to your home. If someone is not inside/close to your home... not an immediate threat... you generally don't have the legal authority to kill them. This is what you keep ignoring because it doesn't allow you to continue to expand the infringement. Only in a post-apocalyptic scenario are there hordes of home invaders such that a cruise missile or machine gun was appropriate. Even your comment about using it against a 'pesky rock formation'?? That's not even remotely home defense. That's like saying you should be allowed to use dynamite (without regulation) to dig a pool. This lays bare where your mind is on this subject.

No, there is NOT any ambiguity in the 2nd amendment. As I said, if there were, you would have seen challenges to it and/or violations of it early on. I'm fairly certain you did not see any AT ALL until the 20th century.... more than 100 years without anyone finding ambiguity. You wanted a Gatling gun or a cannon? It's yours. Maybe if you could show me where someone, even a PIRATE was arrested for the crime of owning a cannon, I could agree with you. They weren't. They were only charged with using them for an otherwise ILLEGAL purpose.

The "well-regulated militia" thing seems very ambigious.

Couple of things there ---

a) there are zero verbs associated with the clause 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' -- thus an introduction clause. But zero action.

b) the verb phrase is 'shall not be infringed' --- the subject of that verb phrase is 'the right of the *people*'. It *doesnt* say 'the right of the people in the militia', and it doesnt say 'the right of the militia'.

So no, it isnt ambiguous when you look at it and diagram it and simply analyze it using very common English.

Try this one on:

'Good libraries, being necessary for the education of the masses, the people's right to own and use books shall not be infringed'.

The prefaratory phrase notes a reasoning why the individual right to the the individuals in the group is a good thing -- that creates no special rights solely for libraries at all. When rephrased, I dont think there is anyone alive that would/could argue that the rephrased version creates only rights for people who belong to a library club....

I see your point and like the analogy. But I think the change in language isn't quite right. A well regulated militia is a body of people who are carrying arms that they have been trained to use. A library is a building where books are stored.

The better language would be "Well trained librarians, necessary for the education of the masses, the right of the people to own and use books shall not be infringed."

With that revision, I am almost certain you would find people who would argue that private book ownership could be restricted for non-librarians, and could not be restricted for librarians.

That being said, it's a good tool to explain why you and many others don't think the prefatory statement isn't relevant to the 2nd Amendment. I still think there is inherent ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment since we have decided that some infringement IS constitutional based on how arms are defined.

IMO, a truly unambiguous 2nd Amendment would result in there being absolutely no rules/regulations around arms ownership.

It isnt ambiguous at the slightest. Can you point to any other verb (i.e. bequest) *except* that 'to the people'?

The contra that it is ambiguous one would have to make the argument that the FF were incapable of precise speech, and did not know the difference between the group of militia and 'the people'. Bluntly, speaking, I cannot fathom that from even one of them --- let alone the entire group as a committee in 1787.

To claim it is ambiguous, one has to argue that the FF, as a group, were so inarticulate as to not being able to discern a 'militia' from 'the people'.

In your counter-example, they would have to be so inarticulate as to the level to being unable to discern 'librarians' from 'the people'.

1) the common rules of English clearly show the only bequest is to 'the people'. 2) there are no reservations as to that bequest. 4) 'militia' is not congruent with the group 'the people'. Fourthly, the FF, imo, were not so illiterate as to not understand the implications of 1, 2, and 3. Your stance has to devolve to the idea that they were so illiterate as to not understand *any* of 1), 2), or 3).

Let's ignore the militia aspect, as the last portion of my comment did that (yet you maybe missed that based on your response).

Even with the militia language struck, it's still inherently ambiguous because of how broad it is. A truly unambiguous 2nd Amendment would result in NO infringements, but yet here we are - as stated multiple times, no one on here is arguing that the 2nd Amendment is without limits.

In my mind, most broad rules/laws are inherently ambiguous unless they are truly binary.